Chapter 1 sets the historical and theoretical background of the book. It starts by describing the regulatory battles that took place from the 1970s to adopt more stringent tobacco control measures. Then, it illustrates how the negotiations of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the subsequent WTO and international investment disputes can be considered the internationalisation of the tobacco wars. In this context, the concept of ‘lawfare’ is introduced as a descriptive device and analytical tool for the analysis of the book. The second part of the introduction introduces the second fil rouge of the book: evidence. It begins by defining the notion of evidence and by showing how, in the context of tobacco control, it can refer to different bodies of evidence that pertain both to the risk assessment and risk management dimension of tobacco control measures. This second part, moreover, shows how evidence has always been one of the key points of contention in the tobacco wars and has continued to be so in the international tobacco control lawfare. The introduction concludes with an explanation of the methodology employed, a reflection on its limits, and an outline of the content of the book.

In addition to summarising the main findings of the book, this final chapter offers some reflections on the lessons that emerge from the history of the international tobacco control lawfare. The reflections are organised around the two main themes of the book: lawfare (Section 5.1) and evidence (Section 5.2). The first part offers some thoughts on the value of using ‘lawfare’ as an analytical tool, zooming in on the role of business actors in international regulation (Section 5.1.1) and on a reflexive account on one’s research (Section 5.1.2). The second part summarises the main topics related to evidence that have emerged in the book: the different types of evidence in risk assessment and risk management (Section 5.2.1), international law’s overreliance on evidence (Section 5.2.2), evidence as a weapon (Section 5.2.3), and evidence as an ideological battleground (Section 5.2.4).

Chapter 3 analyses how evidence has become a central element of the FCTC regime (2005–present). Section 3.1 captures the most important developments since the conclusion of the FCTC in 2003. Section 3.2 provides the theoretical framework of the chapter, focusing on the concept of path dependence in international organisations. Section 3.3 proceeds by showing that the development of the guidelines by the FCTC Conference of the Parties (COP) has been in effect a continuation of the strategy on evidence. Section 3.4 in turn highlights the second facet of the FCTC as an evidence-based regime, that is how the FCTC has mobilised new evidence at the national level. Sections 3.5 and 3.6 reflect on the consequences that the evidence-based approach has had on the outlook of the FCTC regime. Section 3.5 uses in-depth qualitative analysis to demonstrate that the evidence-based approach has reinforced the importance of the expertise of civil society organisations. Finally, Section 3.6 illustrates how the evidence-based approach has started to show its shortcomings in the work of the FCTC COP – particularly in the approach to new products like e-cigarettes (or ENDS) and in the (lack of) development of strategies to foster the implementation of tobacco control measures.

Chapter 2 presents the theoretical approach that informs the argument and analysis. I view the generation and distribution of power in society, and how and why that evolves over time, as inherently linked and thus the fundamental context for social inquiry. The chapter defines social power, arguing that power needs to be understood as something distributed among agents. Thus the definition of social actors is also central, and especially the fact that in the modern period these are increasingly collective, corporate entities, based on modes of association other than kinship. The sharpening and proliferation of such corporate actors, and the domestication of competition, are reciprocal processes. Competition and competitors are mutually defining. Drawing on the tradition of cultural ecology, I also clarify what I mean by ‘social evolution’, emphasising a shift in focus from ‘societies’ to forms of social organisation as the key units of analysis.